What? (Event Horizon)

[jebus197]

I know this. They are right when you don't need to consider quantum sizes, but they are not right when you do. If they are not right, then they must, by definition, be wrong. Perhaps I should been slightly more explicit in my initial post...

Nope not wrong. In need of refinement - or perhaps indeed of replacement with a better theory which includes the observations of both QM and General relativity. Ask a qualified astrophysicist or a Quantum mechanic. I will give you very good odds that they will be likely to bet that any subsequent theory will include much of the maths from both these fields. Hence not error, rather than refinement.

Quite. GR fails on very small scales, therefore it is wrong. That's all I was saying. It's still correct enough at larger scales.

I refer to my previous answer. And again though not error, since what takes place at or beyond the event horizon of a black hole is simply a matter of pure speculation. The laws of physics no longer apply in any way that we are able to describe, since we only have the laws of physics within our own Universe and frame of reference. I suspect what you are saying is because we can't describe what happens beyond this point, General Relativity and Quantum mechanics must be wrong, and that we should with an improved theory be able to describe this? But this is not the case!! The only thing that the laws of physics (and this is likely to be true also for any subsequent theory) say about this, indeed the only thing they can say about this, is that this is the point that the laws of physics, as we know and understand them fail. This is also because you can't send information beyond this point and hope to get any useful information back. In other words, the laws of physics accurately predict that this is the point at which the laws of physics and our efforts to understand them break down.

Again, it doesn't imply that GR is wrong. We could perhaps dream up some other exotic form of physics in an attempt to describe this condition, however this is always likely to remain purely a work of the imagination, since we can never enquire beyond the event horizon of a black hole and guess which of our more exotic musings is most likely to be true. However it remains the case that up until the event horizon of a black hole, GR holds true. The incompleteness of physics, is not due to mathematical infinities (which BTW are not the same as physical infinities, since as we have seen previously the clock continues to tick for a black hole, it has a limited life span, a definite mass, density and size etc. - all of which are measurable). The difficulty arises in that (so far) we haven't been able to unite the observations of both General relativity and Quantum mechanics. However when we do (and I remain hopeful that it is a matter of when - even though I doubt that it'll be in my life-time), I doubt any physicist, astronomer, or quantum mechanic worth their salt will ever be inclined to say that either Newton, Einstein Bohr (and others) were ever wrong, rather than that they were 'stopping off points' on he road to a much bigger journey of discovery. They were not wrong, just 'contributors' to a much wider body of truth.

Yes, I know. I already stated I know how science operates, give me the benefit of the doubt will you? :)

I think you might be learning!

This I disagree with, of course there is a right and a wrong. Whether they are comprehensible by us is another question entirely...

Ahh in that case, for absolute truth - including what happens - and the exact conditions that exist beyond the event horizon of a black hole, I'm afraid you must appeal to a higher power - to perhaps the creator of the Universe itself, for it's likely that only he can have this level of absolute knowledge. Unfortunately as a non-believer, I can't join you in this enquiry. (Indeed most of the time I have a hard job convincing myself that what we consider as reality even exists, so I'm unlikely to start trying to inquire beyond what it's already possible for me to know. Understanding reality as it is a difficult enough already!)

Which means that Relativity is wrong at this scale, which is exactly what I was trying to say at the start.

Not wrong more than probably not applicable at this scale. GR describes the macro, while QM describes the quantum (or sub atomic) scale. They are both describing different aspects of reality. What we're missing is the 'middle bit' that unites these two perspectives.

Which means that something has gone wrong with our model of physics. Our model of physics is wrong under these conditions. Simple.

Again, not wrong, just incomplete.

(Everything that I didn't reply to I agree with completely).

Thanks for your generosity!

[TrueMonolith]

@xyz

Einstein was only commenting on the difference between classic physics and quantum physics. Classical physics (which Einstein very diligently believed in) declares that if all variables in the universe are known, everything in the universe can be predicted exactly and precisely. However, quantum physics says that there is a certain amount of unpredictability; chaos (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). When Einstein mocked the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle by referring to it as "rolling the dice".

His dislike of quantum physics (even though some call him the creator of it) does not mean that relativity was ever meant to describe things at that level. In fact, if I remember right, he actually started to ignore quantum physics in his later years. While quantum physics was gaining more and more momentum in the science world, Einstein became increasingly more isolated from the revelations that were occurring. He later attempted to reconcile the absence of relativity's lack of explanation of the quantum world which leads me to believe that relativity (when it was published) was not meant to describe the quantum world.

Actually, the way quantum physics works, the more you know about where something is, the less you know about where its going to go.

[jebus197]

Actually, the way quantum physics works, the more you know about where something is, the less you know about where its going to go.

Erm... Did he say anything different? To be precise however, I think what you mean is that the more you know about something's position (for example an electron) the less you can say about it's energy, since in order to measure either of these you have to interact with it (with for example a photon), thus altering both. Indeed there are better explanations of this above.

Not a great deal to do with the topic though...

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

Nope not wrong. In need of refinement - or perhaps indeed of replacement with a better theory which includes the observations of both QM and General relativity. Ask a qualified astrophysicist or a Quantum mechanic. I will give you very good odds that they will be likely to bet that any subsequent theory will include much of the maths from both these fields. Hence not error, rather than refinement.

If the (body of) theory is in need of refinement then it isn't correct in all circumstances, and is thus wrong (in some circumstances). I can't understand how you fail to see this point :s

I refer to my previous answer. And again though not error, since what takes place at or beyond the event horizon of a black hole is simply a matter of pure speculation. The laws of physics no longer apply in any way that we are able to describe, since we only have the laws of physics within our own Universe and frame of reference.

The laws of physics as we understand them are written in terms that we can understand and described by human Theory. We do not understand what we cannot describe.

I suspect what you are saying is because we can't describe what happens beyond this point, General Relativity and Quantum mechanics must be wrong, and that we should with an improved theory be able to describe this? But this is not the case!! The only thing that the laws of physics (and this is likely to be true also for any subsequent theory) say about this, indeed the only thing they can say about this, is that this is the point that the laws of physics, as we know and understand them fail.

Which would indicate an incompleteness of our body of theory not a schism in reality.

In other words, the laws of physics accurately predict that this is the point at which the laws of physics and our efforts to understand them break down.

In other words: Our theories only describe what they describe, they don't describe everything, but they do desribe when they stop describing. Great, my point exactly.

Again, it doesn't imply that GR is wrong. We could perhaps dream up some other exotic form of physics in an attempt to describe this condition, however this is always likely to remain purely a work of the imagination, since we can never enquire beyond the event horizon of a black hole and guess which of our more exotic musings is most likely to be true.

So you're not willing to accept that GR is somehow wrong but you're willing to accept that there's a whole new type of reality where different laws of physics are at work? Sounds convoluted and silly to me. See also: Occam's Razor.

The incompleteness of physics, is not due to mathematical infinities (which BTW are not the same as physical infinities, since as we have seen previously the clock continues to tick for a black hole, it has a limited life span, a definite mass, density and size etc. - all of which are measurable).

Correlation does not imply causation: Just because we get infinities out of our equations doesn't mean that the infinities are the cause of the problem with our theory, merely an indication that what we're describing shouldn't happen.

The difficulty arises in that (so far) we haven't been able to unite the observations of both General relativity and Quantum mechanics. However when we do (and I remain hopeful that it is a matter of when - even though I doubt that it'll be in my life-time), I doubt any physicist, astronomer, or quantum mechanic worth their salt will ever be inclined to say that either Newton, Einstein Bohr (and others) were ever wrong, rather than that they were 'stopping off points' on he road to a much bigger journey of discovery. They were not wrong, just 'contributors' to a much wider body of truth.

If they were not wrong, why do calculations using their theories produce incorrect results?

I think you might be learning!

Yay, patronisation! Thank you!

Ahh in that case, for absolute truth - including what happens - and the exact conditions that exist beyond the event horizon of a black hole, I'm afraid you must appeal to a higher power - to perhaps the creator of the Universe itself, for it's likely that only he can have this level of absolute knowledge. Unfortunately as a non-believer, I can't join you in this enquiry. (Indeed most of the time I have a hard job convincing myself that what we consider as reality even exists, so I'm unlikely to start trying to inquire beyond what it's already possible for me to know. Understanding reality as it is a difficult enough already!)

I'm an Atheist, I have no concept of a higher power or universe creator in my own internal hypothesis of the universe.

The existence of an absolute truth does not mean that any entity must have knowledge of the absolute truth, just that it exists. Of course, it's impossible to prove without first being omniscient, so this is not really a scientific question and one more of philosophy.

Not wrong more than probably not applicable at this scale. GR describes the macro, while QM describes the quantum (or sub atomic) scale. They are both describing different aspects of reality. What we're missing is the 'middle bit' that unites these two perspectives.

Any "right" theory would be applicable at any scale, just unnecessarily complex at the largest scales.

[jebus197]

If the (body of) theory is in need of refinement then it isn't correct in all circumstances, and is thus wrong (in some circumstances).

No, again not wrong! It just doesn't describe everything, because it can't, simply because it's incomplete.

I can't understand how you fail to see this point

Indeed the feeling is mutual!

The laws of physics as we understand them are written in terms that we can understand and described by human Theory. We do not understand what we cannot describe.

By Jove I think you're getting it!! We only have known laws to work by. At the point where we can no longer use these laws to describe reality, we don't say our theories are wrong, we just say that we cannot describe what we cannot describe.

Which would indicate an incompleteness of our body of theory not a schism in reality.

There is no 'schism in reality', simply a point beyond which we cannot enquire. Physicists doesn't say that the laws of physics break down beyond the event horizon of a black hole, simply that we cannot know what these laws are. This however does not imply an 'error' in the laws of physics, it is simply an artefact of the physical nature of black holes.

In other words: Our theories only describe what they describe, they don't describe everything, but they do describe when they stop describing. Great, my point exactly.

I congratulate you on your insight! Physics says there are certain fundamental limits to our knowledge. One of those fundamental limits is what happens beyond the event horizon of a singularity.

So you're not willing to accept that GR is somehow wrong but you're willing to accept that there's a whole new type of reality where different laws of physics are at work? Sounds convoluted and silly to me. See also: Occam's Razor.

No, I'm not willing to accept that GR is wrong. Several people have already pointed out to you that GR and QM simply describe different aspects of reality at different scales. At these scales they are correct. What most physicists are interested in attempting to do is fill in the gaps, or to find the 'middle ground' that would serve to unite these two perspectives. Neither am I saying that there is a new type of reality "where different laws of physics are at work." The laws of physics are the laws of physics. They are contained within the bounds and confines of the Universe in which we exist. What I am saying is that in this particular situation, we cannot know (or at best can only aimlessly speculate), what these laws are. In other words, as I said previously, there is a physical limit to our understanding!

Correlation does not imply causation: Just because we get infinities out of our equations doesn't mean that the infinities are the cause of the problem with our theory, merely an indication that what we're describing shouldn't happen.

Unfortunately again no. You speak of 'problems' with the theory, but I sense you feel a problem is in some sense analogous to an error. However incompleteness (or indeed refinement) does not imply error. Without Copernicus we wouldn't have had Galileo, without Galileo, we wouldn't have had Newton, Without Newton we wouldn't have had Einstein, without Einstein we wouldn't have had (???). Indeed for a good representation of this see here: http://www.weburbia.com/pg/historia.htm . Virtually all of these theories in some way or other have have contributed to our current understanding of physics. Also an infinity doesn't imply that 'something shouldn't happen'. An infinity is just an infinity. There's no law in physics that says that all infinities should be placed on the naughty chair! It's just a point (particularly in this instance) where it becomes impossible for us to say anything meaningful about the object, or condition we are studying.

If they were not wrong, why do calculations using their theories produce incorrect results?

Because their incomplete! However they are also spectacularly successful in the extent of what they do describe.

Yay, patronisation! Thank you!

No I just don't like to misrepresent reality, especially when a lay audience might be reading whatever we may write here. Left as is, your original statement may have caused several people reading thread to suppose that many of the founding theories that constitute the current study of physics (indeed they are physics!) were somehow all wrong. That is a very big claim by any measure...

I'm an Atheist, I have no concept of a higher power or universe creator in my own internal hypothesis of the universe.

The existence of an absolute truth does not mean that any entity must have knowledge of the absolute truth, just that it exists. Of course, it's impossible to prove without first being omniscient, so this is not really a scientific question and one more of philosophy.

Well it seems we are meeting in the middle and that perhaps we see eye to eye on something. Only a God could be the possessor of absolute truth. For only they could know what cannot be known by us. Indeed only a god could know if the concept of absolute truth exists at all. However if QM is correct in any sense (although I suspect you will continue to insist that it is 'wrong'), it tells us that it is the act of observation itself that creates reality. So in essence we make reality up as we go along and reality predicts our responses to it! So if reality isn't an ever present continuous entity, it may well indeed be impossible to define a single concept of absolute truth. For a fun view of this see here:

. The incompleteness in our understanding of reality is therefore always likely to remain incomplete, since reality itself is altered simply by the act of us observing it! How can a description of 'absolute truth' exist therefore, when many different potential versions of reality exist simultaneously? There are likely to be as many different versions of the truth as there is of reality, and this is only ever decided upon when we look at them! If you are still c*ck sure that there should only be one definable version of reality, try watching this show and ask yourself the question, "how long is a piece of string?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80jxKQP2V0Y...&playnext=1 It sounds like a simple enough question, but if you are certain of your assertion, watch it until the end and then come back and report how sure you feel then? (The explanation of Schr?dinger's cat paradox in the final quarter, is I feel particularly poetic). Edited January 14, 2010 by jebus197

[HeretikSaint]

Actually, the way quantum physics works, the more you know about where something is, the less you know about where its going to go.

I believe you are referring to electron configuration. You can not know both the location and the velocity of an electron at the same time. You can either know one or the other. I'm not quite sure why you replied to my post with this. Electron configuration is dealing more with chemistry than quantum physics.

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

[long post]

I think we should agree to disagree on wrong vs incomplete as this is just (going to) go round in circles.

I know its hard to judge somebody's knowledge based on a few forum posts, but I really do know more about physics than you're giving me credit for :p

Granted my initial comment was a little... basic considering the complexity of my argument, but nevertheless I stand by my opinion that our current theory is wrong, even if only in certain circumstances. You may call this incompleteness instead but I posit that this difference is simply semantics.

I believe you are referring to electron configuration. You can not know both the location and the velocity of an electron at the same time. You can either know one or the other. I'm not quite sure why you replied to my post with this. Electron configuration is dealing more with chemistry than quantum physics.

It's a property of all Quantum particles, and is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

[jebus197]

I think we should agree to disagree on wrong vs incomplete as this is just (going to) go round in circles.

Fair enough! :)

I know its hard to judge somebody's knowledge based on a few forum posts, but I really do know more about physics than you're giving me credit for :p

Well, I don't know that much. I'm simply fortunate to have picked up a little during the time I spent at college....

Granted my initial comment was a little... basic considering the complexity of my argument, but nevertheless I stand by my opinion that our current theory is wrong, even if only in certain circumstances. You may call this incompleteness instead but I posit that this difference is simply semantics.

I think this is likely to remain a sticking point. Wrong and incomplete are not the same thing. By this definition everyone throughout the entire time-line of physics (although this contains many omissions) I pointed to could be judged to have been wrong at some point or other. But the truth is hat they were right insofar as what they knew - and we wouldn't be here today without them. (Nor indeed would any subsequent theory that replaces GR and/or QM).

However, I suspect like you, I don't really have time for further debate on this matter. It was fun though to revisit a topic I probably hadn't thought about for some time. ;)

[HeretikSaint]

I think we should agree to disagree on wrong vs incomplete as this is just (going to) go round in circles.

I know its hard to judge somebody's knowledge based on a few forum posts, but I really do know more about physics than you're giving me credit for :p

Granted my initial comment was a little... basic considering the complexity of my argument, but nevertheless I stand by my opinion that our current theory is wrong, even if only in certain circumstances. You may call this incompleteness instead but I posit that this difference is simply semantics.

It's a property of all Quantum particles, and is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

I mentioned the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in the post where I described Quantum Physics. I still have no idea why he replied with the post he replied with. However, I didn't necessarily realize that the inability to know both the velocity and location of an electron was part of the principle.

[TrueMonolith]

I mentioned the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in the post where I described Quantum Physics. I still have no idea why he replied with the post he replied with. However, I didn't necessarily realize that the inability to know both the velocity and location of an electron was part of the principle.

mmmhm.

Just remembered it because it was a running joke between me and an ex of mine

"Do you know where we are?"

"Nope...but i can tell you where we're going".